"We are pleased with the vote that occurred today," Tom
Hoffman, spokesman with Walter Energy's offices in Birmingham, said. "We've
done a lot of work to get information into everyone's hands."

Voting in favor of the project were Commissioners John
Williams, John Vallas, Carlos Grant and Don Hembree. Voting against were Terry
Plauche and Roosevelt Turner.

Six other commissioners were either absent or opted to
abstain from voting: Victoria Rivizzigno, William DeMouy Jr., James Watkins,
Scott Webster, Jarret Wingfield and Tracie Lee-Roberson.

The decision could be appealed to the Mobile City Council.
The opposition, which includes concerned citizens and business owners within
the Church Street East neighborhood and parts of downtown Mobile, has 15 days
to file a request for the decision's appeal.

"We are disappointed," said Greg Vaughan, an attorney who
has spearheaded the opposition movement and helped lead a petition drive that
compiled 1,680 signatures opposing the project. "We have had a coal problem for
quite some time. We are trying to encourage people to move to downtown Mobile
not leave and go to Baldwin County or west Mobile."

A vote to overturn the commission's decision will likely
take a supermajority of five council members.

But Hoffman described the project as an "outstanding"
development located within a 25-acre lot that, for approximately 50 years, has
been utilized for heavy industry.

"The only thing we're doing different is getting rid of old equipment
and putting in new equipment," Hoffman said.

During the commission hearing – which featured 30 minutes
each of presentations from Walter Energy officials and project opponents – the
company cited its environmental protection measures they believe will keep dust
and water pollution to a minimum.

Dr. Allen Dittenhoefer of Birmingham, though a "comprehensive
air quality impact assessment," said the project will emit less particulate
matter into the air than what many industrial uses already in Mobile currently
allows.

"The impact of the terminal is extremely small," he said. "The
emission rates are extremely small compared to what's currently emitted in the
county."

Dan Grucza, vice-president of environment for Walter Energy,
said that covered conveyors and fog control devices, including 16 water cannons
to reduce air pollution, will keep the site's dust pollution under control.

"We go above and beyond what is required and are committed to
being a good neighbor and a responsible corporate citizen in your community,"
he said.

Vaughan said he wasn't convinced. He said that the company has
not tested the equipment that will be installed into the Blue Creek facility.
He said that the Mobile terminal is the first time Walter Energy is developing
a project that includes the technology the company claims will reduce harmful
pollution.

Hoffman said the situation in Birmingham is "apples and oranges"
compared to its project proposal in Mobile.

"It's out of context," he said. "We were (cleaning the area)
not because we were generating so much dust to do that but because people are worried
about dust in general."

Vaughan also said that the company has shown little interest
in exploring a potential dome structure over the coal stock piles it's planning
at the facility. Hoffman said at an estimated cost of $60 million, the dome is
cost prohibitive especially since any of the dust pollution would take place
through the transfer – not the storage – of coal.

Residents who spoke before the commission, overall, said
there were concerned about the development while others said they still sought
information.

Casi Callaway with the Mobile Baykeeper said she has
questions remaining about stormwater management issues at the terminal site.

The company, last week, held an open house community meeting
for the public to learn more about the terminal project. Walter Energy, which
is one of Alabama's largest companies, was criticized for not being more
proactive months ago in discussing plans for the Mobile project.

"I think it is fair criticism that maybe we should've done
this sooner," Hoffman said. "Candidly, we made an assumption that was erroneous
(that the project would be approved because) this was a site used for coal terminal
for 50 years."

Hoffman said he understands the neighborhood concerns.

"I don't live there and they do and you have to respect
their concerns and the emotional attachment to their neighborhoods," he said.